It is rare that I agree withe Michelle Malkin, but I have to admit that in re: the financial crisis, the following post title is a pretty good summation of the administration’s approach to the current situation: Borrow. Spend. Panic. Repeat.
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: The Economy, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
It is worth noting that Congress has gone along with this approach, and the president does not control Congress. If Congress thought the Bush approach to the “financial crisis” was so wrong-headed there is a lot they could have done about it - like not vote for it.
Since the response to the “financial crisis” was budgetary and therefore primarily a legislative action, I find it problematic that we hang this totally around Bush’s neck. Congress authorized every dollar of Bush’s borrowing and every dollar of Bush’s spending.
I’m wondering how long after he is out of office, will people still be loading their problems onto Bush. 1 year? 2 years? Unfortunately I think a lot of people are stuck on autopilot with the blame game, and to them, George W. Bush is the only source of evil in the world, and the only source of all of our woes.
There are a few hundred people in congress, which has been controlled by the democrats for two years now, who could put the brakes on this process if they wanted to. So far they’ve been totally complicit.
Why aren’t we calling THEM to the carpet? Isn’t it their job to check and ballance against Bush’s executive power? If we’re to believe that this wrong-headed Bush financial policy is solely his doing, we have to admit that our Congress has failed, utterly and totally, at its job.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Does Congress’ role in all of this somehow mitigate the fact that the admin is pretty much doing what is described?
Regardless of Congress, which has its own culpability, to be sure, Paulson asked for the cash as if he had a plan and has proceeded to lurch about. You don’t find this problematic?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Of course I find the approach problematic. In fact I find it reprehensible.
BUT, and this is a HUGE, HUGE but - Congress had the opportunity to say NO to the administration on this matter, or to force Paulson to use the money in specific ways. They could have spelled it all out as preconditional to giving the treasury the money. There is no limit to the limits they could have imposed, or the oversight they could have put on the use of the funds.
To an extent, they did. The measure failed in Congress on its first go-around. It passed on its second because it was greased up with pork, and contained some weak language about oversight. But it didn’t go far enough. It passed because of the pork.
And THAT is a reflection of the congress. I’m not forgiving the administration’s approach to the problem or its blank check policy here. I hate it. I’m a fiscal conservative. I haven’t bought new jeans in over five years.
What I’m saying is that if Congress is letting the Bush administration run rough-shod all over it when the guy is a lame duck and his party is a minority in both bodies of Congress, we have a Congress that is failing. It is not using the power of the purse as a check against executive athority; and if it can’t do it under the current cicumstances, I can’t imagine a circumstance where it could.